Opinion
February 28, 1994
Appeal from the Supreme Court, Kings County (Vinik, J.).
Ordered that the appeal from the order dated July 23, 1991, is dismissed, without costs or disbursements, as that order was superseded by the order dated February 6, 1992, made upon reargument; and it is further,
Ordered that the order dated February 6, 1992, is affirmed insofar as appealed from, without costs or disbursements.
We find that the attempted personal service at the defendants' actual home address on three occasions when a working person might reasonably have been expected to be at home was a sufficient showing of due diligence permitting substituted service (see, CPLR 308; Brunson v. Hill, 191 A.D.2d 334; Hochhauser v. Bungeroth, 179 A.D.2d 431; cf., Pizzolo v. Monaco, 186 A.D.2d 727; Serrano v. Pape, 188 A.D.2d 647; Moss v. Corwin, 154 A.D.2d 443). Accordingly, the Supreme Court properly denied the defendants' motion, inter alia, to dismiss the action on jurisdictional grounds.
In addition, the defendants' second motion, although denominated as a motion for reargument and renewal, was in fact a motion for reargument insofar as the defendants did not allege any additional material facts which existed at the time the prior motion was made but were not then known to them. Moreover, upon reargument, the Supreme Court correctly adhered to its original determination, since it had neither overlooked nor misapplied any controlling principle of law.
We have considered the defendant's remaining contentions and find them to be unpreserved for appellate review, and, in any event, without merit. Balletta, J.P., Pizzuto, Friedmann and Krausman, JJ., concur.